Saturday, February 7, 2009

Just to give you a heads up, this is a seriously ranty post. I feel all ranty because I had a bad dentist/ Century 21 experience today (I honestly don't know which one was more traumatic) and I picked up the new issue of Purple, which I found to be completely and utterly appalling. For the last few years I have been mildly annoyed by the change in editorial tone, lack of experimentation, and the fact that it has become increasingly geared towards a heterosexual male audience. But I really can't stomach how blatantly commercial it is. The advertising and the editorial content are so integrated that it is difficult to distinguish the two. The current issue hawks Diane von Furstenberg, Belvedere vodka, and Fred Jewelry (what the eff is that anyway?) alongside a gazillion traditional advertisements. Why?

The strength of Purple was always it's sense of authenticity. Clothes were modeled by real people. Models looked like real people. Wolfgang Tillmans, Mark Borthwick and countless others contributed work that was completely devoid of commercialism and cliché notions of sexuality. I'm not saying that the Purple of today isn't a quality magazine, of course it is. The fashion content is always fantastic, the recurring "Terry Richardson's Life Story" feature is super-compelling, and I really appreciate what Mario Sorrenti, Katja Rahlwes, and a handful of other photographers are doing. It's just that the Purple of today is so far removed from the original magazine and that makes me majorly unhappy. And don't even get me started on that retarded Purple Nights thing that came out awhile back. In what universe does anyone want to pay $85 for a magazine that consists entirely of party pictures? Like, how many photos do I need to see of Oliver Zahm with some topless model? ZERO.

Moving on, I thought I'd take this opportunity to post a photo from Purple 16 of Frankie Rayder and Susan Cianciolo avec un chat. Enjoy!

6 comments:

totally agree with you on that olivier zahm purple nights shit. I have it and regret having bought it. Also i feel like zahm is pervert but not in a good way. Like I said in my a past post of mine, he reminds of me Joe Francis from Girls Gone Wild

Yeah, he's totally Joe Francis-esq. It's not that that there is no good content in that issue, theres Ellen von Unwerth editorial that I think you would like. And like I said in the post, Mario Sorrenti's stuff is really good. But it's just evolved into a completely different magazine. I mean, the back issues didn't even have models or celebrities on the covers. And I'm really over all of this stupid Belevedere product placement. It's kind of insulting as a reader. And you know that belevedere is probably giving them a shitload of money for doing it. That magazine is so expensive that they shouldn't have to resort to that.

Yea you're right about everything, as usual. The Belvedere is disgusting..I also want a magazine to do an article on not how great Terry richardson, but the differences/complexities between his father's acheivements and Terry's. The first richardson was aware of the superficiality and that fame really means nothing- that you should rise above fame. The second richardson is obviously lavishing in fame not that i don't love terry but he is sort of crossing a line at this point from what he could be, into just an easy representation of what people expect from him--like why is he in the belvedere commercials? He is cashing in like no other i mean he is probably as rich as any wall street pig. But i mean with all creative types- its hard not to sell out. At some point racks at Barney's are going to seem more alluring than keeping your street cred. Only a .001 percent of those types can really keep their credibility, like pascale for example. She really doesn't give a shit about any of that but if I ever had the chance to sell out I probably would-because as shameful as it is i love money.